Striking the Right Balance between Privacy and Public Protect ion

[Dave Bird]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <012438016373D411A0F300508BBD04A5022EB85A@L01EB006>, Watkin
Simon <Simon.Watkin@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk> writes
>> From: David_Biggins@usermgmt.com [mailto:David_Biggins@usermgmt.com]
>> Sent: 23 October 2002 16:38
>>
>> > The discussion on this list is the pre-cursor to a 
>> > large-scale national debate.  What the list is telling me is helping
>> shape what we 
>> > publish and invite views on.
>> 
>> Good.  In which case the first topic has to be why the "right to
>> privacy" was watered down to "right to respect for privacy" - a much
>> less solid term.
>
>If there was any "watering down" it was back in 1950 when the ECHR was
>drafted and privacy was determined to be not an absolute right.  As it says:
>
>"Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home
>and his correspondence.
>   
>There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of
>this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in
>a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or
>the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or
>crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the
>rights and freedoms of others."

 But any such privacy article would have to deal with exemptions for
 allowable entry, search, and seizure: that is unavoidable.


- -- 
   ^-^-^-@@-^-;-^   http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/
        (..)__u     news:alt.smoking.mooses

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1

iQA/AwUBPbcdVnpGxv7MBb4WEQJf6ACgxToLI1bkzlVi2zbIUtIAoAnwpBcAoI8p
qaVpOnN5m/nsZLe0IzITLXhZ
=OvbC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----